{¶ 2} Taylor did not appeal his convictions which resulted from his guilty pleas, but on October 3, 2006, he moved to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. The trial court оverruled his motion and this appeal followed.
{¶ 3} In a single assignment of error, Taylor contends the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Taylor contends the trial cоurt should have granted his motion because the court misinformed him that he could be sentenced to eight (8) years on each of the felonious assault charges for a possible sentence of thirty-nine (39) years to life. Taylor argues that the felonious assault charges merge with the murder charge per R.C.
{¶ 4} Taylor has not favored us with a transcript of the plea hearing, but the State does not dispute Taylor's claim that the trial court told him he faced 39 years to life if he was conviсted on all the charges. Taylor was charged in the first court of the indictment in case No. 04-CR-02771 with cаusing the death of Sharice Allen as a result of his committing or allegedly to commit a crime of violence, to-wit, felonious assault in violation of R.C.
{¶ 5} Taylor argues he could not be convicted of the murder of Sharicе Allen pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 6} The State argues that Taylor failed to demonstrate to the trial court that it should have granted his motion to prevent a manifest injustice as required by Crim.R. 32.1. The Statе argues that Taylor's delay in filing his motion also militates against granting the motion.State v. Francis (2004),
{¶ 7} Ohio's Rev. Code 2941.25 addresses when offenses merge, and it provides as follows:
{¶ 8} "(A) [w]here the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied оffenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but thе defendant may be convicted of only one.
{¶ 9} "(B) Where the defendant's conduct constitutes twо or more offenses of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses of thе same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the indictment *4 or information may contain counts for all such offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them."
{¶ 10} The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Rance (1999),
{¶ 11} In State v. Jones, Mont. App. No. 21522,
{¶ 12} The trial court therefore properly advised Taylor of the sentence he faced if convicted on all charges. Taylor failed to demonstrate that he was the victim of a *5 manifest injustice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Taylor's motion to withdraw his pleas. The assignment of error is Overruled. The Judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
*1FAIN, J., and GRADY, J., concur.
